DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Note: The amended claim features currently presented are substantially the same as those previously presented and treated in the prior Office Action of 10/1/2025. Applicant’s substantive amendments primarily consist of features already examined in Claim 10 that have been moved to Claim 1. While applicant has added “receiving probes at a same end of the transmitting probe are disposed at intervals of a longitudinal distance” to Claim 1, any two receiving probes longitudinally spaced can be said to meet this requirement as no limitation is imposed on the what the intervals are or what the longitudinal distance is or must be. This feature is therefore inherent in the prior art. The currently presented amendment is therefore substantially the same as was previously examined. The same issue exists with regard to the previous and current 112 rejections, where the same issues previously raised are being raised in the instant Office Action. As such, because the same prior art, same embodiments of the prior art, and same issues are being raised with no new issues, embodiments, or prior art being asserted, a final rejection on first action is proper. See MPEP § 706.07(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to applicant’s arguments on pages 6-10 directed towards the previous 112(a) rejections,
As to Claim 1,
With regard to new matter:
Applicant argues, with regard to new matter, that while paragraph [0066] describes the electromotive force in singular form, it does not mean that the electromotive force is limited to one measurement. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The original disclosure expressly “The ground processing module is configured to obtain distance information and azimuth information of a second well by an inversion of the electromotive force” (emphasis added) in paragraph [0066]. As such, the ground processing module is configured to use one measurement, which is the electromotive force, to obtain distance and azimuth information. The Examiner acknowledges that applicant has more than one probe or that other measurements at later times can be taken. However, the issue here is not whether applicant’s invention is limited to a single use of making one measurement. Instead, the issue here is the number of measurements that were disclosed to be used to obtain distance and azimuth information. Here, applicant expressly originally discloses that one electromotive force is used for this purpose, and not plural values of electromotive force to obtain the distance and azimuth information. While plural values may be obtained at other times to later obtain other respective values of distance and azimuth values, and thus provide an example of where the plural receivers of Figure 11 are used, does not rebut the express disclosure by applicant that one electromotive force was used to obtain distance and azimuth information.
Applicant then cites a document “Modeling and simulation of transient electromagnetic detecting sensor in relief well” to Ling et al. (Ling), such a document does not remedy the raised issue. This document is not mentioned in the original disclosure in any way, and thus what applicant is doing is identifying a document completely separate from the original disclosure what another device has done. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that the original disclosure of an application must itself be complete, and it does not include any other document not expressly incorporated by reference, and it does not include all disclosures of all references in existence at the time. As has been held, “Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. It extends only to that which is disclosed. While the meaning of terms, phrases, or diagrams in a disclosure is to be explained or interpreted from the vantage point of one skilled in the art, all the limitations must appear in the specification. The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification. Rather, a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought … One shows that one is "in possession" of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious. Id. ("The applicant must also convey to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the 'written description' inquiry, whatever is now claimed.") (emphasis in original). One does that by such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention. Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba … A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient” (emphasis added) (Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-1572).
To that point, none Ling are part of the original disclosure, and at most Ling demonstrates what would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. However, what is obvious is not part of the original disclosure as explained above. Applicant, for example, may have invented a way to use one electromotive force to obtain distance and azimuth as expressly stated in the original disclosure. As such, what Ling discloses at most demonstrates what was known at the time of filing and demonstrates one way to meet the claim requirements, but it does not provide support for claim features of the instant application. Instead, it is the original disclosure that must provide such support, and Ling is not part of the original disclosure. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees
With regard to proper written description:
Applicant argues that paragraphs [0042]-[0050] provide support for the claim feature at issue. Applicant further explains that r represents a distance or relative distance. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that the original disclosure does not provide this explaining and never connects r to any form of distance or relative distance. None of the above paragraphs state what applicant is arguing. Furthermore, Claim 1 now recites that the ground processor uses the inductive electromotive force to distance information. As such, whether r does or does not relate to relative distance does not reasonably meet the claim limitation, because any processor would need to compute r in order for the processor to use the indued electromotive forces to obtain this distance or value. Even presuming that r was a relative distance, the original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which r is obtained or computed.
Furthermore, while applicant points to the above paragraphs, these paragraphs do not reasonably originally disclose that plural induced electromotive forces are used to obtain a single relative distance or distance information as now claimed. The original disclosure does not originally disclose such a feature, nor provide any explanation as to the manner in which plural forces as claimed are used to obtain a single relative distance or distance information.
Applicant then admits that “the technology of obtaining relative distance information and azimuth information of the adjacent well using the formulas is known technology.” Applicant then argues the disclosure in light of what was disclosed in Ling to support the claim features, and argues that the azimuth angle can be obtained using two receiving coils located at different positions by inversing the induced electromotive forces. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant.
First, the Examiner notes that the entirety of what applicant argues would reasonably require that knowledge of one or ordinary skill in the art, as these arguments are rooted in such knowledge and go beyond merely arguing whether a feature is or is not present in a prior art reference or point to a specific paragraph of the disclosure that, in applicant’s opinion, provides support for a written description issue. Here, applicant argues what applicant believes a person of ordinary skill in the art would know and could have done, thus requiring the knowledge of such a person. However, as explained in MPEP 2145(I), “An argument by the applicant is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of applicant statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.” Here, while Ling is evidence of what was known, these is no established connection between Ling and the instant disclosure, and any such connection and further explanation would require the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and thus evidence as to what such a person would have known in light of the disclosure. Applicant does not provide such evidence, and instead only provides attorney argument, but attorney argument cannot reasonably remove a rejection without evidence when it requires the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Second, the next issue here is that much of what applicant argues is not found in the original disclosure, and is in fact being gleaned from Ling, with applicant arguing that applicant is relying upon “known technology.” However, while applicant may rely upon that which is “well-known” or conventional without further explanation, when applicant reasonably conveys applicant’s intent to do so with a sufficient explanation, there is no provision that allows for applicant to rely upon “known” technology for such a purpose. As held in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018), “Whether a particular technology is well-understood, routine, and conventional goes beyond what was simply known in the prior art. The mere fact that something is disclosed in a piece of prior art, for example, does not mean it was well-understood, routine, and conventional.” MPEP 2163(II)(3)(a) explains “What is conventional or well known to one of ordinary skill in the art need not be disclosed in detail. See Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94. See also Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2005).”
As such, it has been held that conventional or well-known features must still be disclosed, but are not required to be disclosed in detail, and that there is a difference between that which is known and that which is well-known. Applicant at most establishes what is known, but whether something is or is not known does not preclude applicant from having to disclose such a feature or provide a sufficient explanation within the application itself. There is neither evidence nor argument that the features argued by applicant were “well-known,” and thus what is disclosed in Ling does not reasonably absolve applicant of having to provide more detail in the disclosure to reasonably establish possession of the claim features.
Lastly, the majority of applicant’s arguments are directed towards what Ling discloses and how it pertains to applicant’s disclosure. However, nowhere in the original disclosure does applicant ever identify what is disclosed in Ling, or provide any reasonable explanation to demonstrate the manner in which applicant implemented the argued features. While Ling may disclose one manner of implementing the claim features, it does not provide proper written description for the claim features because it is not part of the original disclosure. Ling at most establishes what would have been obvious, but as explained in the above Lockwood case, merely cause a feature is obvious does not provide support for proper written description as it not part of the original disclosure. There is no evidence that applicant ever intended to rely upon what is disclosed in Ling.
Ling, further, explains at most what was known, but such a reference does not meet the threshold of demonstrating what was “well-known” in order for applicant to rely upon such knowledge. as explained in the above Hybritech, Inc case, well-known features need not be disclosed “in detail.” Such an explanation does not mean the original disclosure can be completely silent on such an issue. Instead, it only requires less explanation when such features being relied upon, when applicant makes clear that applicant intends to rely upon what was well-known in the art, and where once a sufficient level of detail were provided, no further explanation was necessary. For example, if has provided an express equation that itself can be readily solved to obtain azimuth and distance information, along with a device that was reasonably capable of implementing the equation, such as a microprocessor, then applicant would have reasonably met the written description requirement and can further rely upon the above Hybritech, Inc case without further explanation. This is because a person of ordinary skill in the art would know how to solve equations, and would know how to implement such an equation on a microprocessor. However, if applicant did not disclose any equation, or disclosed part of an equation or a high level version that required further math and explanation to solve which was not otherwise provided, then applicant would not have reasonably demonstrate proper written description, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably recognized the manner in which applicant was implementing the claim feature. Such a person would not have recognized whether applicant was intending to rely upon that which is well-known or was relying upon an undisclosed approach not well-known to a person of ordinary skill, or have any guidance as to what type of well-known approach applicant intended to rely upon should one exist.
Merely identifying a reference and stating that applicant intended to use that particular approach to obtain distance and azimuth information does not reasonably establish proper written description, because that disclosure is not part of the original disclosure, applicant never identified such a disclosure or reference as the intended manner of implementing the claim features, and because there is no evidence that such a feature from Ling was well-known.
As such, nothing in Ling reasonably provides or could provide support for the instant claim features.
Applicant then notes paragraph [0055], but the Examiner respectfully notes that while obtaining a “relative gesture” between two wells using two received responses may be disclosed, this only means that two responses are needed to obtain a relative gesture Two responses would reasonably be needed in order to obtain a value of one well relative to another. However, such a relative gesture does not mean that applicant needed or even disclosed the use of plural responses when determining azimuth and distance as expressly stated in the original disclosure as explained above.
As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regard to the arguments on pages 10-12 directed towards the previous 112(b) rejections,
No specific arguments are presented in this section. As such, those amendments that have been overcome by the instant amendments are withdrawn, and those that have not are repeated below.
With regard to the arguments presented on pages 12-17 directed towards the prior art rejections involving Fang et al. (Fang) (US 2014/0111210), Hagiwara (US 2018/0292560), and Young et al. (Young) (US 2020/0263534).
As to Fang et al. (Fang) (US 2014/0111210), applicant argue that the reference does not disclose each pair of receiving probes symmetrically installed at two ends of the transmitting probe. For support, applicant identifies Figure 10 and its related description. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that the embodiment of Figure 10 is not relied upon for such a feature. As expressly stated in the previous and instant rejection, Fang discloses this feature because it discloses “each pair of receiving probes is symmetrically installed at two ends of the transmitting probe (Figure 12), (Paragraph [0054]).” As such, it is the embodiment of Figure 12, and not Figure 10, that is being relied upon for the claim feature being argued. Because none of applicant’s arguments address the Figure 12 embodiment relied upon for the instant rejection, these arguments, respectfully, do not demonstrate why the embodiment relied upon the rejection fails to disclose the claim feature being argued. Furthermore, as to other features such as the coils being disposed in grooves, such a feature is found in and taught from Hagiwara. No arguments pertaining this feature are argued from Hagiwara. Lastly, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant is arguing the references individually, and not in the combination. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s remaining arguments are directed towards why the other prior art references do not disclose such a feature. However, none of these references are relied upon to teach the argued feature. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that these arguments, respectfully, do not demonstrate why the embodiment relied upon the rejection fails to disclose the claim feature being argued.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6-9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “the ground processor configured to obtain relative distance information and azimuth information of the adjacent well by performing an inversion on the plurality of induced electromotive forces generated by the plurality of pairs of receiving probes” on the last three lines proper written description and introduces new matter.
As to new matter,
The original disclosure expressly states “The ground processing module is configured to obtain distance information and azimuth information of a second well by an inversion of the electromotive force” (emphasis added) in paragraph [0066]. As such, the ground processing module is configured to use one measurement, which is the electromotive force, to obtain distance and azimuth information. The original disclosure, as best understood, does not reasonably disclose that more than one force is used to obtain either distance or azimuth information as now claimed. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
As to proper written description,
The original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which applicant obtains any relative distance information or azimuth information about the adjacent well, either with just one electromotive force or plural electromotive forces. While the original disclosure does include formulas, none of these formulas, are directed towards or explained to be used to find any distance or azimuth information. In fact, as best understood, these formulas merely describe induced electromotive force for any similar system using a coil to include current in an object. But applicant is claiming that such a formula is used to obtain azimuth information and distance information ,but where applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which this formula is used for this purpose. Applicant furthermore does not reasonably provide any explanation as to the manner in which applicant implements such features. Applicant does state that an inversion is done to obtain information, but merely stating inversion is not reasonably sufficient to provide azimuth or distance information, because inversion is not a particular mechanism to achieve these features. Instead, inversion is merely a generic mathematical mechanism used for modeling, and it is not specific any form of distance or azimuthal computations. As such, merely disclosing “inversion” does not reasonably demonstrate the manner in which such an inversion is used to obtain distance or azimuthal information. Because the original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which applicant obtains distance or azimuth information, the above phrase lacks proper written description
As to Claim 6,
The phrase “obtaining, by the ground processor, the relative distance information and the azimuth information of the adjacent well by performing the inversion on the plurality of induced electromotive forces generated by the plurality of pairs of receiving probes” on the last three lines lacks proper written description and introduces new matter
As to new matter,
The original disclosure expressly states “The ground processing module is configured to obtain distance information and azimuth information of a second well by an inversion of the electromotive force” (emphasis added) in paragraph [0066]. As such, the ground processing module is configured to use one measurement, which is the electromotive force, to obtain distance and azimuth information. The original disclosure, as best understood, does not reasonably disclose that more than one force is used to obtain either distance or azimuth information as now claimed. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
As to proper written description,
The original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which applicant obtains any relative distance information or azimuth information about the adjacent well, either with just one electromotive force or plural electromotive forces. While the original disclosure does include formulas, none of these formulas, are directed towards or explained to be used to find any distance or azimuth information. In fact, as best understood, these formulas merely describe induced electromotive force for any similar system using a coil to include current in an object. But applicant is claiming that such a formula is used to obtain azimuth information and distance information ,but where applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which this formula is used for this purpose. Applicant furthermore does not reasonably provide any explanation as to the manner in which applicant implements such features. Applicant does state that an inversion is done to obtain information, but merely stating inversion is not reasonably sufficient to provide azimuth or distance information, because inversion is not a particular mechanism to achieve these features. Instead, inversion is merely a generic mathematical mechanism used for modeling, and it is not specific any form of distance or azimuthal computations. As such, merely disclosing “inversion” does not reasonably demonstrate the manner in which such an inversion is used to obtain distance or azimuthal information. Because the original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which applicant obtains distance or azimuth information, the above phrase lacks proper written description.
As to Claims 2, 6-9, and 13-15,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6-9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al. (Fang) (US 2014/0111210) in view of Hagiwara (US 2018/0292560) and Young et al. (Young) (US 2020/0263534).
As to Claim 1,
Fang in a first embodiment discloses A system of detecting an adjacent well, comprising an apparatus of detecting the adjacent well, a ground processor (140) (Paragraph [0034]), and a signal generator (any of the modules that apply the transient pulse, such as communication such 172, or the sensor module) (Paragraph [0032],[0033]); wherein the apparatus of detecting the adjacent well is disposed on a drill collar (201) of a first well and comprises a transmitting probe (603),(605) and a plurality of receiving probes (609,611), the adjacent well is any well adjacent the first well, of cluster wells (Figure 6) (Paragraph [0034] / note determining a distance between wellbore 126 and a pre-existing wellbore), the transmitting probe is configured to generate a primary magnetic field according to a bipolar transient pulse signal (both 701 peaks are considered a collective pulse signal) applied to the transmitting probe (Paragraphs [0046],[0047] / note the pulse signal interpretation is similar to and consistent with how applicant interprets the pulse signal in the disclosure with spaced apart pulses being part of the signal); wherein a change of the primary magnetic field is capable of generating a second magnetic field on a casing (205) of the adjacent well (Paragraph [0046],[0047] / note field 607 will generate eddy currents with secondary magnetic fields in the casing); and the plurality of the receiving probes is configured to generate a plurality of induced electromotive forces (Paragraphs [0046]-[0048] / note that this is a property of the system in that when the system rotates, the probes will generate signals based upon the rotation), the signal generator is configured to apply the bipolar transient pulse signal to the transmitting probe (Paragraphs [0046]-[0048]), (Figure 6), and the ground processor is configured to obtain the distance information and the azimuth information of the adjacent well based on the induced electromotive forces (Paragraphs [0046]-[0048],[0033] / note the processing can be done via the ground/surface equipment), (Figure 6).
Fang in a first embodiment does not disclose the plurality of receiving probes comprises pairs of receiving probes, the plurality of pairs of receiving probes is configured to generate a plurality of induced electromotive forces, the plurality of pairs of receiving probes are transverse coils disposed in grooves opened on a surface of the drill collar; and the coils are respectively perpendicular to an axial direction of the drill collar; and each pair of receiving probes is symmetrically installed at two ends of the transmitting probe, receiving probes at a same end of the transmitting probe are disposed at intervals of a longitudinal distance, and the ground processor configured to obtain relative distance information and azimuth information of the adjacent well by performing an inversion on the plurality of induced electromotive forces generated by the plurality of pairs of receiving probes.
Fang in a second embodiment discloses the plurality of receiving probes comprises pairs (1215),(1217) of receiving probes (Figure 12 / note the coils used are saddle coils, and each saddle has two respective loops or windings and thus each saddle coil, such as coil 1215, has a pair or probes), the plurality of pairs of receiving probes is configured to generate a plurality of induced electromotive forces (Paragraph [0054] / note the output signals generated in response to the detected magnetic field are signals induced from electromagnetic forces),(Figure 12), the plurality of pairs of receiving probes are transverse coils (Figure 12), the coils are respectively perpendicular to an axial direction of the drill collar (Figure 12); and; each pair of receiving probes is symmetrically installed at two ends of the transmitting probe (Figure 12), (Paragraph [0054]), receiving probes at a same end of the transmitting probe are disposed at intervals of a longitudinal distance (Figure 12 / note that the “intervals” are undefined, and thus any portion along of the longitudinal direction can be defined as the intervals, such as by dividing the distance between the coils by two or more with those divided distances being the intervals ), (Paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fang in the first embodiment to include the plurality of receiving probes comprises pairs of receiving probes, the plurality of pairs of receiving probes is configured to generate a plurality of induced electromotive forces, the plurality of pairs of receiving probes are transverse coils; and the coils are respectively perpendicular to an axial direction of the drill collar; and each pair of receiving probes is symmetrically installed at two ends of the transmitting probe, receiving probes at a same end of the transmitting probe are disposed at intervals of a longitudinal distance as taught by Fang in a second embodiment in order to advantageously provide a redundant pair of coils in case one pair is damaged, thereby allowing the device to continue to function even if the coils are damaged, and in order to be able to take differential measurements such that the noise from the earth's magnetic field is substantially removed, a significant portion of the signal from the magnetized casing still remains for processing, and the signal-to-noise ratio of the final measurement is thus improved (Paragraph [0059]).
Hagiwara discloses the plurality of receiving probes are transverse coils disposed in grooves opened on a surface of the drill collar (Paragraph [0030]), (Figure 2C).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fang to include the plurality of receiving probes are transverse coils disposed in grooves opened on a surface of the drill collar as taught by Hagiwara in order to advantageously protect the coils from the harsh borehole environment by embedding them within the housing, thus limiting their exposure to the borehole environment.
Young discloses obtaining the relative distance information and the azimuth information of the adjacent well by performing an inversion on the induced electromotive forces at the plurality of receiving probes (Paragraph [0063] / note the four parameters include azimuth and where these are used to find distance, and that the received signal must be an induced emf, especially as coil receivers are used as explained in paragraph [0108]) and an antenna is used to induce a signal as explained in paragraph [0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fang in view of Hagiwara to include the ground processor configured to obtain relative distance information and azimuth information of the adjacent well by performing an inversion on the plurality of induced electromotive forces generated by the plurality of pairs of receiving probes given the above disclosure and teaching of Young in order to advantageously minimize error by way of a cost function and thereby increase the function’s accuracy or to make it behave more smoothly (Paragraph [0065]).
As to Claim 2,
Fang discloses the transmitting probe is a coil wound on the drill collar (Figure 6); and an axial direction of the coil wound on the drill collar is parallel to an axial direction of the drill collar (Figure 6).
As to Claim 6,
Fang in view Hagiwara and Young discloses A method of detecting the adjacent well, applied in the system of detecting the adjacent well in claim 1 (see the above rejection of Claim 1), comprising: applying, by the signal generator, the bipolar transient pulse signal (note both peaks 701 for the signal) to the transmitting probe (Paragraphs [0046]-[0048] of Fang), (Figure 6); generating, by the transmitting probe, the primary magnetic field excited by the bipolar transient pulse signal (Paragraphs [0046]-[0048] of Fang), (Figure 6); generating, by the plurality of pairs of receiving probes according to the second magnetic field, the plurality of induced electromotive forces (Paragraphs [0046]-[0048]), (Figures 6,12 / see the above Fang combination); and obtaining, by the ground processor, the relative distance information and the azimuth information of the adjacent well by performing the inversion on the plurality of induced electromotive forces generated by the plurality of pairs of receiving probes (see the above feature taught in from Young, in the above combination which discloses this claim feature), and (Paragraph [0063] / note the four parameters include azimuth and where these are used to find distance, and that the received signal must be an induced emf, especially as coil receivers are used as explained in paragraph [0108]) and an antenna is used to induce a signal as explained in paragraph [0047]).
(Note: The above claim features are merely reciting a positive use of the same claim features that were already taught in Claim 1. Because the prior art system of Claim 1 was already stated to disclose these features, the actual use of the apparatus to implement these features must also be taught by the prior art combination).
As to Claim 7,
Fang discloses the change of the primary magnetic field is capable of generating the second magnetic field on the casing of the adjacent well (Paragraphs [0046]-[0048]), (Figure 6), comprising: when a forward pulse of the bipolar transient pulse signal excites the transmitting probe (Paragraphs [0046]-[0048]), (Figure 6), generating, by the transmitting probe, the primary magnetic field in a space (Paragraphs [0046]-[0048]), (Figure 6),; and when the forward pulse is turned off, generating an annular induced current and the second magnetic field on the casing of the adjacent well (Paragraphs [0046]-[0048]), (Figure 6).
As to Claim 8,
Fang discloses, wherein an induced electromotive force of the plurality of induced electromotive forces is:
PNG
media_image1.png
32
148
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in the above expression of the induced electromotive force, UR represents the induced electromotive force, o represents a signal angular frequency, Nr represents the number of turns of a coil of the receiving probe, and S represents an effective area of the coil of a receiving probe of the plurality of receiving probes (Paragraphs [0046]-[0048]), (Figure 6 / note that as best understood, the above formula merely describes an emf that would exist in any receiver coil, especially in the coil of Fang which is substantially similar to that of applicant. As such, the above phrase is reasonably a property of the system of Fang, and therefore disclosed by Fang.).
As to Claim 9,
Fang in the first embodiment in view Hagiwara and Young does not disclose the obtaining the relative distance information and the azimuth information of the adjacent well by performing the inversion on the induced electromotive forces generated by the plurality of receiving probes comprises: performing differential amplification processing on induced electromotive forces generated by the each pair of receiving probes; and obtaining the relative distance information of the adjacent well by performing the inversion on a signal obtained after the differential amplification processing has been performed.
Fang in a second embodiment discloses performing differential amplification processing on induced electromotive forces generated by the each pair of receiving probes (Paragraph [0054]), (Figure 12); and obtaining the relative distance information of the adjacent well by performing the inversion on a signal obtained after the differential amplification processing has been performed. (Paragraphs [0046],[0054] / note the receiver coils are sensitive to azimuthal position and those any output from the coils contains azimuthal information).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fang in the first embodiment in view Hagiwara and Young to include the obtaining the relative distance information and the azimuth information of the adjacent well by performing the inversion on the induced electromotive forces generated by the plurality of receiving probes comprises: performing differential amplification processing on induced electromotive forces generated by the each pair of receiving probes; and obtaining the relative distance information of the adjacent well by performing the inversion on a signal obtained after the differential amplification processing has been performed given the above disclosure and teaching of Fang in a second embodiment in order to be able to take differential measurements such that the noise from the earth's magnetic field is substantially removed, a significant portion of the signal from the magnetized casing still remains for processing, and the signal-to-noise ratio of the final measurement is thus improved (Paragraph [0059]).
As to Claim 13,
Fang discloses the change of the primary magnetic field is capable of generating the second magnetic field on the casing of the adjacent well (Paragraphs [0046]-[0048]), (Figure 6), comprising: when a forward pulse of the bipolar transient pulse signal excites the transmitting probe (Paragraphs [0046]-[0048]), (Figure 6), the transmitting probe generates the primary magnetic field in a space (Paragraphs [0046]-[0048]), (Figure 6), and when the forward pulse is turned off, generates an annular induced current and the second magnetic field on the casing of the adjacent well (Paragraphs [0046]-[0048]), (Figure 6).
As to Claim 14,
Fang discloses, wherein an induced electromotive force of the plurality of induced electromotive forces is:
PNG
media_image1.png
32
148
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in the above expression of the induced electromotive force, UR represents the induced electromotive force, o represents a signal angular frequency, NR represents the number of turns of a coil of a receiving probe of the plurality of receiving probes, and S represents an effective area of the coil of the receiving probe (Paragraphs [0046]-[0048]), (Figure 6 / note that as best understood, the above formula merely describes an emf that would exist in any receiver coil, especially in the coil of Fang which is substantially similar to that of applicant. As such, the above phrase is reasonably a property of the system of Fang, and therefore disclosed by Fang.).
As to Claim 15,
Fang in the first embodiment in view Hagiwara and Young does not disclose the ground processor is further configured to perform differential amplification processing on induced electromotive forces generated by the each pair of receiving probes; and obtain the relative distance information of the adjacent well by performing the inversion on a signal obtained after the differential amplification processing has been performed.
Fang in a second embodiment discloses the ground processor is further configured to perform differential amplification processing on induced electromotive forces generated by each pair of receiving probes (Paragraph [0054]), (Figure 12), and obtain the relative distance information of the second well based on the differential amplification processing (Paragraphs [0046],[0054] / note the receiver coils are sensitive to azimuthal position and those any output from the coils contains azimuthal information), (Paragraphs [0046]-[0048],[0033] / note the processing can be done via the ground/surface equipment), (Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fang in the first embodiment in view Hagiwara and Young to include the ground processor is further configured to perform differential amplification processing on induced electromotive forces generated by the each pair of receiving probes; and obtain the relative distance information of the adjacent well by performing the inversion on a signal obtained after the differential amplification processing has been performed given the above disclosure and teaching of Fang in a second embodiment in order to be able to take differential measurements such that the noise from the earth's magnetic field is substantially removed, a significant portion of the signal from the magnetized casing still remains for processing, and the signal-to-noise ratio of the final measurement is thus improved (Paragraph [0059]).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858